Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Purpose: Motion management presents a significant challenge in thoracic stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR). Currently, a 5.0 mm standard planning target volume (PTV) margin is widely used to ensure adequate dose to the tumor. Considering recent advancements in tumor localization and motion management, there is merit to reassessing the necessary PTV margins for modern techniques. This work presents a large-scale analysis of intrafraction repositioning for lung SABR under forced shallow breathing to determine the margin requirements for modern delivery techniques.
Methods And Materials: Treatment data for 124 lung SABR patients treated in 607 fractions on a linear accelerator were retrospectively collected for analysis. All patients were treated using pneumatic abdominal compression and intrafraction 4D cone beam computed tomography (4D CBCT)-guided repositioning halfway through treatment. Executed repositioning shifts were collected and used to calculate margin requirements using the 2-standard deviation (2SD) method and an analytic model which accounts for systematic and random errors in treatment.
Results: 85.7% of treated fractions had 3D repositioning shifts under 5.0 mm. 53 fractions (8.7%) had shifts ≥5.0 mm in at least one direction. Margins in the right-left, inferior-superior, and posterior-anterior directions were 3.62 mm, 4.34 mm, and 3.50 mm, respectively, calculated using the 2SD method. The analytic approach estimated 4.01 mm, 4.37 mm, and 3.95 mm margins were appropriate for our workflow. Executing intrafraction repositioning reduced margin requirements by 0.73 ± 0.07 mm.
Conclusions: Clinical data suggests that the uniform 5.0 mm margin is conservative for our workflow. Utilizing modern techniques such as 4D CT, 4D CBCT, and effective motion management can significantly reduce required margins, and therefore necessary healthy tissue dose. However, the limitations of margin calculation models must be considered, and margin reduction must be approached with caution. Users should conduct a formal risk assessment prior to adopting new standard PTV margins.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prro.2024.12.001 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!